The idea of self-organization in the system of public administration

Metasystem anomalies are deviations that occur in the relationship between civil society and the state. The basic criterion for disorganization at this level should be recognized as the negative dynamics of the processes of social self-organization. The main sign of this condition is a significant disorganization of the process of reproduction of life support resources -- material (nutrition, things, housing), human (negative imbalance in fertility and mortality) and ideal (science, education, culture, moral health). An integral indicator of the socially unfavorable consequences of these disorganizations is a steady decline and a long delay in a state of extreme decline in the level and quality of life of the bulk of the population. The control criterion of the national danger of this state is the unwillingness of the national community to survive in the conditions of the economic blockade of the country or major military aggression.

Systemic anomalies are structural and functional disorders of the state mechanism. Manifestations of these anomalies are: displacement of the goal of the state apparatus when it switches to serving the socially unproductive elite in the political and economic spheres, ensuring its viability and well-being to the detriment of the interests of society; inadequacy of the structure of state bodies to the tasks and functions of socio-organizational practice; violation of subordinate and coordination intrastructural relations, mismatch of activity of branches and levels of state power; social agnosia -- a disorder of the information-analytical function of the state apparatus, manifested in the inability to collect and analyze information about social processes or its selective, socially unproductive use; rule-making dysfunction, which is the inoperability and imperfection of the developed draft government decisions or the discrepancy between socially justified proposals and political settings; law enforcement insolvency -- the inability to enforce decisions taken by state authorities, manifested in the prevalence of offenses in administration and society. Integral manifestations of these destruction and dysfunction in socially sterile and dangerous terms are professional incompetence, bureaucratization and corruption of the public service. The social significance of systemic anomalies is the unreliability of the state mechanism as a socio-organizational system due to its low immunity to the damaging effect of socially destructive factors.

The listed multilevel anomalies are interdependent. So, general organizational and managerial disorders of state-public relations can be caused by anomalies at the system and local levels and, conversely, metasystem destruction and dysfunction produce the corresponding quality of intrasystem relations.

It is socially productive that provides self-realization of a person and a citizen, helps him to reveal his potential, develop it and realize it in public life. Understanding the mission of the state mechanism in the context of such a goal and participating in its implementation is a basic factor in effective government activity. The implementation of this mission requires openness between the state and society, which means the presence of two-way feedback, when the parties are in the process of interaction both subjects and objects of public administration. This is the basic principle of a democratic society. Anomalies of the state mechanism begin with a violation of the openness of state-public relations. This happens when: a) the state tries to omnipotently and totally control social and economic processes, imposing its projects on its activities to civil society, which actually leads to the elimination of civil liberty, the government serves itself and puts the whole society at the service of the state; b) the state is subject to the will of the dominant part of civil society and serves its interests; c) the state is powerless to influence society. In this situation, the state distances itself from society, closes itself from it and serves itself, leaving only an imitation of organizational and managerial activity for its justification.

The shift of the state's goal towards self-service, as an anomalous phenomenon, manifests itself, first of all, in state-building technology. The structures of government bodies are formed not as a means of implementing the functions produced by the problems of society, but as supporting formations of the state system that defines those functions that are necessary for its self-preservation. The dominance of structure over function, when organizational systems that are created to solve some problems, are solved by others and strive for self-sufficient behavior, turning the goal into a tool and the tool into a goal, creates the basis of organizational pathology.

The dominant value of the structure naturally enhances its inherent and necessary properties for the normal functioning of the system. So, being conservatively necessary, it becomes a factor restraining any changes in the organization. Under pressure from the shift of state goals and the bureaucratization of government, the functions of the state apparatus also become abnormal. The information-analytical function either turns into a means of total control of social processes in the interests of power, or becomes an end in itself in the process of imitation of public administration. Design and regulatory activities acquire the character of normative formalization of the will of the “upper classes”. Organizational-executive and control functions are either concentrated in the internal structural administration space, or are also transformed into a means of total social control (Romanov, 2003:187).

The way out of the anomalous situation is determined in two areas of reform activity. The first is optimal when the idea of social transformations proceeds from the needs of society, expressed by its organized layer, capable of captivating the people of the country in the mainstream of transformation. The implementation of this direction is extremely difficult. It requires many years of painstaking work in the preceding reformation period in order to study on a professional basis the process of maturation of changes in society, organize a party of supporters of transformations, expand their social base, determine the moment when society is ready for transformation. This path to a truly legitimate government and socially productive public administration, in fact, is based on a synergistic and informational position on the unity of social self-organization, organization and administration.

The second direction is “traditional” -- the forceful assertion of the new government and its policies in society by the state administration apparatus. As a rule, this direction is implemented in the case of a change (retention) of power on a populist (propaganda) basis, when the factor of discontent of the population with the existing political system is used, or the image of the hostile forces of the nation is synthesized, without the proposal of specific (practice-oriented) programs of social reconstruction aimed at raising the level and quality of life of the people. As practice shows, this path is potentially unreliable for the authorities and dangerous for the country as a whole.

The problem is that the mechanism of the state as the functional basis of political power is itself conservative. Formed within the framework of a changing policy, it cannot quickly reorient itself to new management methods and is losing its suitability. Attempts by the new government to organize the administration apparatus through its restructuring, as well as personnel redundancies and replacements, do not lead to success, since new structures are created not so much in connection with the solution of society's problems, but in order to implement the idea of reforms and keep the authorities interested in these reforms persons. At the same time, the professional incompetence of the administrative apparatus is a powerful factor in the devaluation of the political line, even if the policy takes on a crisis or originally had a truly social orientation. Being incapable of qualified diagnostics of disorganization processes in society, development of appropriate management decisions and creative executive activity, the government is alienated both from politics and from citizens. In the best case, it becomes a routine tool for transmitting the will of the “elite” of society, furnishing its activities with a standard framework and approvals that contribute to avoiding personal responsibility. At worst, it is imbued with the spirit of a separate corporation that solves its own problems at the expense of resources, political structures and society.

Conclusion

The study showed that the synergetic approach, developed as a synergy- informational one, which is a consequence of the development of the ideas of cybernetics, tectology, systems theory and the theory of dissipative structures, represents a special (different from the “classical”) type of relations of self-organization, organization and administration of state processes.

So, it seems that the organization process is aimed at identifying new socio- constructive qualities of the emerging systemic form and ensures the fixing and completion of the corresponding self-organizing structures of the state mechanism. Selforganization is included in the organizational process, providing flexibility and due to it the adaptive ability of purposefully created structures. At the same time, the organization forms an administration subsystem designed to support the process of ongoing state formation, to ensure its focus on meeting the social needs of the citizens who make up the community. However, in this process, stable structures of static significance simultaneously arise, forming subsystems of social administration intended to preserve the form statics, regardless of their social value. The conservatism of these entities inhibits the creative renewal of the way of activity of social individuals, thereby closing the process of the formation of society as a whole and transforming it into a system of the final type.

The state is traditionally regarded as a mechanism for imperatively establishing order in society and maintaining the corresponding regime of power as a means of dominant control of the national community. Self-organization in this case manifests itself as a party opposing such a state and, on a historical time scale, destroys the inert structures of state administration, with their anomalies in the state apparatus. In a synergistic and informational understanding of the meaning of the state, its managerial purpose is to provide conditions for the dynamic formation of a society capable of overcoming extreme, crisis processes.

Thus, a provision has been formulated on the unity of forms of social ordering -- self-organization, organization and means of their provision -- public administration. The latter is considered not only as a function of organization and a manifestation of self-organization, but as a means of implementing public orderliness in both forms. This implies overcoming in state policy the disagreement of interests and goals of the people and the system of power that is characteristic of closed societies. Since the establishment of such a state policy is associated with the transition from the power base of regulating public relations to the information one, this process is acquiring objective significance and cannot but lie at the basis of developing a strategy for the socioeconomic and socio-political development of the country, all socially significant administrative scientific projects. Such a representation of the correlation of social selforganization and public administration enriches the state science, including new content related to the achievements of post-non-classical science, in the context of studying the process of formation of the post-industrial information society.

References / Библиографический список

1. Astafieva, O.N. (1999) Sinergetika kak mirovozzrencheskaya i metodologicheskaya paradigm sistemnogo vzaimodejstviya [Synergetics as a worldview and methodological paradigm of the system interaction]. Moscow: Moscow State University of Informatics and Radioelectronics Publ. (in Russian). Астафьева О.Н. Синергетика как мировоззренческая и методологическая парадигма системного взаимодействия. М.: Изд-во МГИДА, 1999. 198 с.

2. Atamanchuk, G.V. (1997) Teoriya gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Theory of public administration]. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ. (in Russian). Атаманчук Г.В. Теория государственного управления. М.: Юридическая литература, 1997. 314 с.

3. Baryshnikov, O.V. (2001) Sinergetika i teoriya gosudarstva i prava [Synergetics and the theory of the state and law]. Legality. 7, 29-32. (in Russian). Барышников О.В. Синергетика и теория государства и права // Законность. 2001. № 7. С. 29-32.

4. Budanov, V.G. (2003) Principy sinergetiki i upravlenie krizisom. Sinergeticheskaya paradigma: Chelovek i obshchestvo v usloviyah nestabil'nosti [Principles of Synergy and Crisis Management. Synergetic paradigm: Man and society in unstable conditions]. Moscow: Russian Academy of Public Administration Publ. (in Russian). Буданов В.Г. Принципы синергетики и управление кризисом. Синергетическая парадигма: Человек и общество в условиях нестабильности. М.: РАГС, 2003. 254 с. Delokarov, K.H. (1995) Sinergetika i upravlenie: metodologicheskoe zamechanie [Synergetics and management: methodological remarks]. Samoorganizaciya, organizaciya, upravlenie [Self-organization, organization, management]. Moscow: Publishing house Russian Academy of Public Administration Publ. (in Russian). Делокаров К.Х. Синергетика и управление: методологическое замечание // Самоорганизация, организация, управление. М.: Изд-во РАГС, 1995. 387 с.

5. Egorov, B.C. (1994) Filosofskij realizm [Philosophical Realism]. Moscow, ComBook Publ. (in Russian). Егоров B.C. Философский реализм. M.: КомКнига, 1994. 511 с.

6. Ivanov, A.V. (2001) Sinergetika v yuridicheskih i politicheskih naukah: (Tez. i diskussii) [Synergetics in legal and political sciences: (Thesis and Discussions)]. Phil. Descriptors. Barnaul, 84-90. (in Russian). Иванов А.В. Синергетика в юридических и политических науках: (Тез. и дискуссии) // Фил. Дескрипторы. Барнаул, 2001. С. 84-90.

7. Kalinichenko, L.A. (2000) Social'naya organizaciya gosudarstvennoj sluzhby [Social organization of public service]. Moscow, LKI Publishing House. (in Russian). Калиниченко Л.А. Социальная организация государственной службы. М.: Издательство ЛКИ, 2000. 335 с.

8. Knyazeva, E.N., Kurdyumov, S.P. (1997) Antropnyj princip v sinergetike [Anthropic principle in synergetics]. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of philosophy]. 3, 62-77. (in Russian). Князева Е.Н., Курдюмов С.П. Антропный принцип в синергетике // Вопросы философии. 1997. № 3. С. 64-70.

9. Leskov, L.V. (1998) Chego ne delat? Futurosinergetika Rossii [What not to do? Futurosynerget- ics of Russia]. Moscow: Thought Publ. (in Russian). Лесков Л.В. Чего не делать? Футуросинергетика России. М.: Мысль, 1998, 198 с. Malinetsky, G.G. (2000) Istoricheskie mekhanizmy i nelinejnaya dinamika [Historical mechanisms and non-linear dynamics]. Sinergetika i psihologiya. Teksty. Vyp. 2. Social'nye processy [Synergetics and psychology. Texts. Issue. 2. Social processes]. Moscow, Janus- K Publ. 190-209. (in Russian). Малинецкий Г.Г. Исторические механизмы и нелинейная динамика // Синергетика и психология. Тексты. Вып. 2. Социальные процессы. 2000. М.: Изд.-во Янус-К. С. 190-209.

10. Moiseev, N.N. (2001) Universum. Informaciya. Obshchestvo. [Universal. Information. Society]. Moscow, Sustainable Peace Publ. (in Russian). Моисеев H.H. Универсум. Информация. Общество. М.: Устойчивый мир, 2001. 287 с. Nazaretian, A.P. (2001) Civilizacionnye krizisy v kontekste universal'noj istorii: (Sinergetika, psihologiya i futurologiya) [Civilizational crises in the context of universal history: (Synergetics, psychology and futurology)]. Moscow: PerSe Publ. (in Russian). Назаретян А.П. Цивилизационные кризисы в контексте универсальной истории: (Синергетика, психология и футурология). М.: PerSe, 2001. 170 с.

11. Petrov, V.K. (2005) Ustojchivost' gosudarstva [State stability]. Moscow: CJSC “Ekonomika” Publishing House. (in Russian). Петров В.К. Устойчивость государства. М.: ЗАО Издательство «Экономика», 2005. 491 с.

12. Potaturin, I.O. (2000) Metodologicheskij podhod k issledovaniyu problemy politicheskogo haosa [Methodological approach to the study of the problem of political chaos]. “Novye” i “vechnye” problemy filosofii [“New” and “Eternal” problems of philosophy]. Novosibirsk: Areca Publ. (in Russian). Потатурин И.О. Методологический подход к исследованию проблемы политического хаоса // «Новые» и «вечные» проблемы философии. Новосибирск: Арека, 2000. 178 с.

13. Protasov, V.N. (2001) Problemy teorii prava i gosudarstva [Problems of the theory of law and state]. Moscow: New Lawyer Publ. (in Russian). ПротасовВ.Н. Проблемы теории права и государства. М.: Новый Юрист, 2001, 240 с. Romanov, V.L. (2003) Social'naya samoorganizaciya i gosudarstvennost' [Social selforganization and statehood]. Moscow, Publishing house Russian Academy of Public Administration. (in Russian). Романов В.Л. Социальная самоорганизация и государственность. М.: Изд-во РАГС, 2003. 189 с.

14. Ruzavin, G.I. (1995) Samoorganizaciya i organizaciya v razvitii obshchestva [Self-organization and organization in the development of society]. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of philosophy]. 8, 227-233. (in Russian). Рузавин Г.И. Самоорганизация и организация в развитии общества // Вопросы философии. 1995. № 8. С. 227-233.

15. Shabrov, O. (1997) Politicheskoe upravlenie: problemy stabil'nosti razvitiya [Political management: problems of stability of development]. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (in Russian). Шабров О. Политическое управление: проблемы стабильности развития. М.: Наука, 1997. 297 с.

16. Shalayev, V.P. (1999) Sociosinergetika: Istoki, teoriya i praktika v sovremennom mire [Sociosynergetics: Origins, theory and practice in the modern world]. Yoshkar-Ol, Publishing house Mari State University. (in Russian). Шалаев В.П. Социосинергетика: Истоки, теория и практика в современном мире. Йошкар-Ола: Изд-во Марийского государственного университета, 1999. 312 с. Tumanov, G.A. (1986) Organizaciya kak funkciya gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Organization as a function of public administration]. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo [Soviet state and law]. 1, 40-44. (in Russian). Туманов Г.А. Организация как функция государственного управления // Советское государство и право. 1986. № 1. С. 40-41.

17. Vengerov, A.B. (1986) Sinergetika, yuridicheskaya nauka, pravo [Synergetics, legal science, law]. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo [Soviet state and law]. 10, 42-47. (in Russian). Венгеров А.Б. Синергетика, юридическая наука, право // Советское государство и право. 1986. № 10. С. 42-47.

18. Yakovets, Y.V. (1999) Cikly. Krizisy. Prognozy [Cycles. Crises. Forecasts]. Moscow, Nauka Publ. (in Russian). Яковец Ю.В. Циклы. Кризисы. Прогнозы. М.: Наука, 1999. 352 с.

About author:

Aleksey V. Zyrianov -- Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor of the Theory of State and Law, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Law Institute, South Ural State University

Об авторе:

Зырянов Алексей Викторович -- кандидат юридических наук, доцент, доцент, кафедра теории государства и права, конституционного и административного права, Юридический институт, Южно-Уральский государственный университет (ЮУрГУ)

Размещено на Allbest.ru